Predictive Programming, Scenario Planning, Perpetual Warfare

[guruilla]

I couldn't find a thread on this subject so I'm starting a new one. I didn't realize when I began culling the quotes below that the material overlaps with the Occult Yorkshire thread in several striking ways. Also with the material I uncovered working on the second part of Prisoner of Infinity, which has to do with NASA, WS Bainbridge, transhumanism, scifi, & scenario planning. I'll add some of that stuff here later.Some of this also puts Bertrand Russell's and my family's involvement in the CND anti-nuclear campaign in a new, murkier light. (Thanks to JI for pointing me to this.)

From Blackmailed by the Bomb: Nuclear Anxiety and the Cult of the Superweapon by Paul & Phillip D. Collins, October 18, 2009

. . . Thanks to irresponsible pseudo-researchers like Alan Watt, predictive programming is one concept in conspiratorial research that is in danger of falling into disrepute. The problem is the ridiculously elastic criterion that some use to categorize certain films, books, and TV shows as “predictive programming.” Suddenly, everything from an innocuous episode of Gilligan’s Island to an inane garage sale sign can be classified as “predictive programming.” Moreover, those who carelessly assign the appellation of “predictive programming” cannot compellingly demonstrate any degree of intertextuality between fictional narratives and actual events. Sadly, such irresponsibility is swiftly relegating the concept of predictive programming to the realm of paranoid fantasy.

Nevertheless, one can hardly deny that certain films, TV programs, and books have had a normative impact on the dominant culture. Artistic works within the genre of science fiction have been particularly influential among audiences. What is being described here is not some incredibly sophisticated system of brainwashing. Operating in a normative capacity, science fiction does not necessarily “make people behave in ways they otherwise would not” (Bartter 169). This perception of science fiction typically engenders “either the tacit justification for propaganda, or the reverse, the explicit justification for censorship” (169). However, it is through the presentation of possibilities that the normative power of science fiction is most effectively demonstrated. Martha A. Bartter states:

[F]iction can represent possibilities for action to a large number of people in such a way that they can more clearly perceive possible choices and the various socio-cultural sanctions attached to those choices. The very act of considering choices irrevocably alters our assumptions about ways we may act, and since actions derive from assumptions (in the sense that both doing and choosing not to do must be considered actions), fiction can indeed endanger the status quo. The censors are right—for the wrong reasons. (169)

If the possibilities presented by normative fiction are given serious socio-cultural currency, then they can give rise to revisions in the status quo and the emergence of new cultural paradigms. Hypothetical scenarios of a normative nature can challenge the underlying assumptions of the current culture. Of course, when one challenges the dominant Weltanschauung, one must pose a viable alternative. To such an end, fiction can prescribe alternative values, principles, philosophies, and Weltanschauungs. Once fiction starts making such prescriptions, it becomes normative in character.

Yet, normative fiction also exhibits an “inherent ambiguity” (169). Although it calls the status quo into question, normative fiction simultaneously reinforces some of the values of the dominant paradigm. Paradoxical though it may seem, normative fiction combines conformity and rebellion to create a potent socio-cultural solvent. Bartter explains:

On the one hand, every fiction arises from a particular time and place; it demonstrates to its hearers/readers a tacit consensus regarding cultural norms. On the other hand, and at the same time, it can introduce to its readers possibilities that they previously did not know or had not considered, and make these possibilities vividly “real” by fictional devices such as plot, character, setting, etc. Through a “willing suspension of disbelief,” readers conduct socio-cultural gedankenexperimente: they test how such ideas might work out in reality and what effects they might produce, and consider the possibility of a new consensus. (169)

Gedankenexperimente is the German word for “thought experiment.” The gedankenexperimente involves the tangible enactment of hypothetical scenarios in hopes of re-sculpting reality and creating a “new consensus.” Ideas are tested and the underlying assumptions of the current culture are called into question. As the socio-cultural thought experiment progresses, it might give rise to revisions in the status quo and the emergence of new cultural paradigms. Thus, the world of fact begins to more closely mirror the world of fiction. The a priori assumptions of science fiction literature become the de facto precepts of culture itself. In a sense, fiction becomes a precursor to fact.

The famous science fiction writer and editor John W. Campbell proposed that sci-fi presented an “unparalleled opportunity for socio-cultural thought experiments” (183). As such, some science fiction can inspire tectonic shifts in society and culture. The nature of these shifts depends upon the nature of the normative statements that inspired them. For instance, the techno-Utopian premises of much science fiction can be somewhat troubling, especially in light of the questionable outcomes of most sociopolitical Utopian movements (e.g., communism, fascism, and other varieties of socialism). To be sure, the techno-Utopian might argue that unfettered scientific progress will facilitate social progress. Yet, theoreticians like Theodor Adorno have correctly identified the disjunction between scientific progress and social progress, citing Nazi Germany as a prime example. Nevertheless, several science fiction writers communicate techno-Utopian prescriptions through their narratives. Such normative seeds can find fertile soil within the minds of audiences who have already made a “willing suspension of disbelief.” At that point, a socio-cultural gedankenexperimente in techno-Utopianism might begin. In fact, many such thought experiments have already taken place, as is evidenced by sizable scientistic cults like Scientology.

Perhaps the socio-cultural gedankenexperimente with the broadest ramifications for mankind is the Manhattan Project. None other than science fiction icon H.G. Wells can be connected with the advent of nuclear warfare. Leo Szilard, a Hungarian-American physicist who conceived the nuclear chain reaction and worked on the Manhattan Project, read Wells’ The World Set Free (Bartter 177). In this novel, Wells coined the term “atomic bomb” (176). Bartter states: “In a very real sense, through Szilard, Wells designed the Manhattan Project” (177). In fact, Wells’ novel even inspired the highly compartmentalized organizational framework of the Project. In turn, this organizational framework promoted an overall milieu of obscurantism. Bartter elaborates:

One of its (the Manhattan Project’s) most important aspects was the application of ` assembly-line techniques to scientific research. By dividing the scientists into teams, each doing a small portion of the research, a high level of secrecy could be imposed on a discipline officially dedicated to the free exchange of information.

Many young scientists were eager to join the Project because it gave them a chance to do “cutting edge” work while serving their country. Few argued against the stifling secrecy; even fewer felt they could properly direct how their work should be used. That these assumptions are somewhat self-contradictory does not make them less powerful, merely less conscious. Scientists themselves read science fiction; many publicly admitted that such reading led them to their careers in science. Science fiction tacitly assumes that the role of scientist included that of alchemist as well; it seems that some Manhattan Project scientists were influenced by these assumptions. (177)

It is interesting that the invention of a weapon that would forever alter warfare was inspired by a man like Wells. Given his ideological heritage and elitist pedigree, Wells had good reason to encourage the introduction of a super-weapon that would plunge traditional international politics into an ontological and epistemological crisis. A cursory perusal of Wells’ résumé reveals his motive for promulgating the pervasive nuclear anxiety that would eventually create the political discourse of fear that underpinned the Cold War.

Wells held many dubious organizational affiliations. Among one of them was the Coefficients Club. Formed by Fabian socialists Sidney and Beatrice Webb, this organization assembled some of Britain’s most prominent social critics and thinkers to discuss the course of the British Empire (“Coefficients (dining club),” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia). In essence, the Club promoted a world state, albeit a unilaterally initiated form of global government dominated by Britain (i.e., a Pax Britannia). Wells articulates this globalist vision in Experiments in Autobiography:

The British Empire . . . had to be the precursor of a world-state or nothing . . . It was possible for the Germans and Austrians to hold together in their Zollverein (tariff and trade bloc) because they were placed like a clenched fist in the centre of Europe. But the British Empire was like an open hand all over the world. It had no natural economic unity and it could maintain no artificial economic unity. Its essential unity must be a unity of great ideas embodied in the English speech and literature. (Experiments in Autobiography 652)

One of the Club’s members was none other than socialist and population control advocate Bertrand Russell.

....

Evidently, this preoccupation with war appealed to Wells, whose fictional works exhibited some distinctly Darwinian militarist themes. Richard Weikart distills the Weltanschauung of the Darwinian militarist:

Darwinian militarists claimed that universal biological laws decreed the inevitability of war. Humans could not, any more than any other animal, opt out of the struggle for existence, since—as Darwin had explained based on his reading of Malthus—population expands faster than the food supply. War was thus a natural and necessary element of human competition that selects the “most fit” and leads to biological adaptation or—as most preferred to think—to progress. Not only Germans, but Anglo American social Darwinists justified war as a natural and inevitable part of the universal struggle for existence. The famous American sociologist William Graham Sumner, one of the most influential social Darwinists in the late nineteenth century, conceded, “It is the [Darwinian] competition for life… which makes war, and that is why war has always existed and always will.” (165-66)

Given the fact that Darwinian militarism was heavily informed by Malthus’ statistical “research,” it is quite ironic that the Coefficients’ warmongering would even disturb a Malthusian like Russell. After all, in Malthus’ view, war served a necessary function in checking population growth. Russell’s unsettling preoccupation with population control actually harmonized rather well with the advocacy of endless conflict. Nevertheless, such warlike notions represented a point of departure between Russell and the Coefficients.

Again, Russell’s misgivings weren’t without justification. By portraying war as a preordained Consequence of the evolutionary development of man, Darwinian militarism condemned the whole human race to perpetual conflict. Moreover, Darwinian militarism rationalized the rejection of moral accountability and a Nietzsche-esque veneration of war:

By claiming that war is biologically determined, Darwinian militarists denied that moral considerations could be applied to war. In their view wars were not caused by free human choices, but by biological processes. Blaming persons or nations for waging war is thus senseless, since they are merely blindly following natural laws. Further, opposition to war and militarism is futile, according to Darwinian militarists, who regularly scoffed at peace activists for simply not understanding scientific principles. (166)

...

Essentially, Wells’ Time Machine allegorically divided mankind into two distinct breeds: ranchers and livestock. In Wells’ view, the great mass of humanity was analogous to the Eloi, a herd whose numbers had to be culled. In order to carry out this unsavory, yet necessary task, a far less compassionate breed of men was required. Like the Morlocks, such men would appear to be monsters to the commoner. Nevertheless, Wells felt that such men should dominate his hypothetical world state, which he also dubbed the “New Republic”:

The men of the New Republic will not be squeamish, either, in facing or inflicting death, because they will have a fuller sense of the possibilities of life than we possess. They will have an ideal that will make killing worth the while; like Abraham, they will have the faith to kill, and they will have no superstitions about death. They will naturally regard the modest suicide of incurably melancholy, or diseased or helpless persons as a high and courageous act of duty rather than a crime. (Anticipations 184)

Other pieces of Wells’ science fiction underscore his Darwinian militarist propensities. For instance, War of the Worlds depicts interplanetary warfare as a macrocosmic extension of natural selection (Williamson 189-95). This theme would eventually pervade the literary genre of science fiction:

Science fiction is admittedly almost impossible to define; readers all think they know what it is and yet no definition will cover all its various aspects. However, I would suggest that evolution, as presented by Wells, that is a kind of mutation resulting in the confrontation of man with different species, is one of the main themes of modern science fiction. (Vernier 85)

This observation brings into clearer focus the dialectical framework intrinsic to evolutionary theory. The organism (thesis) comes into conflict with nature (antithesis) resulting in a newly enhanced species (synthesis), the culmination of the evolutionary process (Marrs 127). Of course, in such a world of ongoing conflict, violence and bloodshed are central to progress. Thus, Darwin’s theory ‘gave credence to the Hegelian notion that human culture had ascended from brutal beginnings’ (Taylor, 386).

....

Wells’ imaginative seeds eventually took root within the mind of Leo Szilard, resulting in the socio-cultural gedankenexperimente of the Manhattan Project:

In 1932, many years after the first appearance of The World Set Free, the Hungarian nuclear physicist Leo Szilard read the novel and admitted in his memoirs that it gave him the idea for an atomic bomb. When, in 1932, Szilard heard of the work of Otto Hahn in Berlin with uranium fission, he realized that such a weapon now actually possible. “All the things which H.G. Wells predicted appeared suddenly real to me.” He shared his thoughts with his old friend and colleague Albert Einstein, who signed and sent a letter on the subject (much of it actually written by Szilard) to President Roosevelt. The president promptly authorized the formation of an “Advisory Committee on Uranium” to study their ideas. In time the work of this committee led to the Manhattan Project and the invention of atomic bombs, the same bombs that ended World War II and initiated a global scramble to acquire nuclear weapons that is still in progress and may some day lead to the collapse of civilization. The survivors — if any — would have reason to hold H.G. Wells personally responsible. (Wagar 146)

...

Nuclear fantasies had a profound influence on the thinking of Harry Truman, which is important given the fact that he is credited with the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to H. Bruce Franklin, Truman’s decision was “influenced by his belief that this demonstration of the ultimate superweapon might indeed bring an end to war” (“Eternally safe for democracy: the final solution of American science fiction” 157). What had caused Truman to place his faith in a weapon that constitutes the Promethean fire of science? Truman’s initiation into the cult of the superweapon is most likely found in the pages of McClure’s magazine (157). As a young farmer in Missouri, Truman subscribed to this magazine and avidly devoured its stories, which included tales of superweapons and global wars leading to peace and unification ushered in by a world government (157). Truman even wrote about his love for McClure’s in a letter to his sweetheart Bess in 1913, stating: “I suppose I’ll have to renew my subscription to McClure’s now so I won’t miss a number” (157).

...

The stories of superweapons that influenced Truman’s generation almost always ended with the complete extermination of black, red, or yellow people (156). It is almost as if the superweapon was ethno-specific in nature. The dreaded “Yellow Peril” was the threat most often presented and according to Franklin, this anti-Asian literature was “especially ferocious” (156). This should come as little surprise. As Gene Wolfe states in the introduction of Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction: “science fiction is of Anglo-American growth” (Prucher xix). It seems that Americans were being conditioned to destroy the Western elites’ competitors in the great game for world hegemony.

...

Given the fact that [The Day After] inhabits the same subgenre of nuclear anxiety fiction, Wells’ The World Set Free constitutes one of the texts that is brought to bear upon The Day After. Implicit in the priest’s sermon is a distorted Biblical condemnation of what Wells called a “mere cult of warfare” in The World Set Free. In The Shape of Things to Come, Wells asserts that this cult is inextricably linked to the nation-state system: “The existence of independent sovereign states IS war, white or red, and only an elaborate mis-education blinded the world to this elementary fact.” Herein is the advocacy of the same sort of multilateral world state envisioned by the Pax Universalis sect of the cult of the superweapon. Multilateral or unilateral models of global governance aside, political unification as the only alternative to nuclear annihilation remains a permanent fixture of nuclear anxiety fiction. Ever-present is a discourse of fear.

As the sermon sequence opens, the audience hears a voice-over of the priest reciting a portion of Revelation 8:7: “…and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.” Simultaneously, the camera follows another character wandering through rumble and dead farm animals. Implicit in this sequence is the reconceptualization of the Biblical concept of the Apocalypse as a purely immanent event. “Immanence” is a term derived from the Latin phrase in manere, which means “to remain within” (“Immanence,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia). An object of immanent experience remains within the ontological confines of the physical universe. Likewise, the Apocalypse depicted by The Day After completely indwells the material cosmos, bereft of any supernatural or transcendent elements.

For instance, the locusts that emerge from the smoke upon the earth in Revelation 9:3 are ripped from their Biblical matrix and reconceptualized as the residual effects of radiation from the bomb. Yet, there is an implicit rejection of Christian soteriology. As the priest cites Revelation 9:4, where it is revealed that the locusts will harm “only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads,” one of the congregation topples over from radiation sickness. The implication is that, as a purely immanent event, the Apocalypse is an indiscriminate killer. There is no salvation or deliverance forthcoming for believer and unbeliever alike.

The Day After had a tremendous impact on the minds of the viewing audience. The movie even converted then-President Ronald Reagan to the Pax Universalis sect. In his autobiography, Reagan stated that the movie had left him “greatly depressed” and had convinced him that a nuclear war was not winnable (585). According to The Day After’s director, Nicholas Meyer, the film had played a major role in the signing of the Intermediate Range Weapons (INF) Agreement in 1986 (“Fallout from ‘The Day After’”). Meyer claims that, shortly after Reagan signed the Treaty at the Reykavik Summit, the administration sent him a telegram stating: “Don’t think your movie didn’t have any part of this, because it did” (ibid).

...

While cults have proven to be effective as elite conduits, they usually have very short life spans. Wells wanted to make a permanent contribution to the oligarchs’ crusade for world government, so he used science fiction to weave his cult into the very fabric of culture itself. Groups such as the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, the Jesuits, and others have all been effectively suppressed by different nations at different times. Yet, how does a national government effectively suppress a cultural phenomenon? History has shown that attempts to do so, more often than not, are met with failure.

Wells’ cult of the superweapon spread like wildfire, mimicking Dostoevsky’s “fire in the minds of men” perfectly. That fire spread to Wells’ fellow elitists, engendering them with an undying devotion that mirrored the most ardent religious fanatic.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/0 ... perweapon/

(Probably worth a look too: The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st CenturyPaperback – June 23, 2006 by Paul Collins (Author), Phillip Collins (Contributor))

[elfismiles]

Wow - big thread potential. Been wondering about a good definition of "Predictive Programming" since its increasingly bandied about. Looking forward to reading more.

[tapitsbo]

An overlap between divination and propaganda/conditioning/entrainment?

[nashvillebrook]

Advertising is the craft of "predictive programming." It's not like this is some new, big idea. We've been programming people to do shit forever. That, they actually do it should come as no surprise. It's a functional response. We tell you what to do and you do it. That's how advertising works. It's like magic, but the pay is better.

So, i can totally imagine science fiction being the engine for another kind of turbo-charged predictive programming.

[guruilla]

Section from POI, part two (which I am just sort of sitting on right now)

“Many scholars have argued that the ideas and literary productions of the astrofuturists ‘prepared the American public for the conquest of space with elaborate visions of promise and fear’ and helped shape the nation’s cultural and political responses.”
— Emily S. Rosenberg, “Far Out: The Space Age in American Culture”

The Next Two Hundred Years, by Herman Kahn, published in 1976, is a NASA-commissioned report on the future and based around a methodology known as “scenario planning.” A little known method of government think tanks for implementing desired futures, scenario planning is really just fiction writing, specifically sci-fi writing. It describes future scenarios as if they were already established, or even as if part of the past (i.e., from a more distant future, looking back . . . in a galaxy far, far away). From what I could tell by skimming, the book is mostly about the socio-economic future of human society with only a few references to space colonization.

Soon after coming across this book “by chance,” however, I discovered an unclassified document at NASA's site, called “Long-Term Prospects For Developments in Space (A Scenario Approach),” by William M. Brown & Herman Kahn. This document describes a complex, multi-level program of social engineering that includes the use of mass media outlets to sell the public to the idea of Space Industrialization. In a nutshell. As such, it is worth quoting at length. From the introduction:

The basic purpose of this report is to formulate some useful and interesting images of the long-term future of space, and to encourage and facilitate the use of such images and scenarios by NASA in its studies, planning, and public information programs. We realize that NASA already makes use of scenarios in its planning functions, but the deliberate formulation “of long-term scenarios and ‘images of the future’ has usually been left to outside freelance writers. [Emphasis added] We believe it is quite useful, perhaps important, for NASA to intervene in this process and also to facilitate it. Some of the current relatively low interest in NASA programs undoubtedly is due to the public’s failure to understand how exciting space development can be in the medium term (1985-2000) as well as in the centuries beyond this one. Of course, the extraordinarily extensive science fiction and other popular literature have already introduced a fairly broad public in this country and abroad to some concepts about space. This literature and its media interpretation however tend to be relatively undisciplined, imaginative (in both a good and bad sense) and, with a few important and spectacular exceptions, relatively unrelated to serious socio-political issues. . . . Long-term scenarios about space development, and, even more important, shared images of the future of space, can contribute to a sense of community, of institutional meaning and purpose, of high morale, and even—to use somewhat extravagant terms—of manifest destiny or of “religious” mission. . . . Such images can have a great impact on political issues—both internal and external.

Further along, the report anticipates “many valuable spinoffs from the technological developments, as well as new services to society.” National pride in such accomplishments, it suggests,

probably accounts for much of the current wave of interest in science fiction that in the U.S. is being expressed through books, movies, and television. A growing national interest and pride in space accomplishments will be required if the public funding of these activities is to increase over time in real terms. Prolonged national enthusiasm appears to be a prerequisite for an optimistic outcome. . . .Through television [public citizens] were able to become “sidewalk superintendents” of these milestone events and were thereby easily able to bridge a gap which otherwise would have required a quantum jump in imagination. . . . Thus, the psychological stage was set for a flurry of new interest in the development of Space Industrialization (SI).

The report discusses an imaginary documentary about a 1989 commercial space tour, a “three-day voyage to near-earth orbit which included a rendezvous with the recently completed international Space Station,” where the tourists were accommodated. The imaginary passengers included the NASA director, the governor of Texas, Senators, Congressmen, a French ambassador and other VIPs, and two movie stars apparently modeled on Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor, “the best-known movie actor and actress in the U.S.” (hardly the case in 1989, but anyway), whose “enthusiasm . . . was vividly conveyed by their spontaneous behavior during the voyage.” Subsequent “‘orchestrated’ television appearances” by the stars “further stimulated public interest in space projects, especially space tours.” This single event, the report imagines, transformed the potential of space exploration away from its prior “fictional aspects” for the average citizen and allowed it to be perceived as “a growing set of real activities with great commercial promise.” “Future Space Developments” then became “a subject taught in schools around the world.” The goal of all this media-directed perception management was for outer space to become “a real world which anyone might experience . . . for those who had a sufficiently strong desire, the possibility now existed to actually go up there.”

While movie stars—as the recognized new royalty—were indispensable for propagating the mass appeal and practicality of the new “civil religion,” astronauts were fast becoming the “high priests”:

In each nation the natural heroes of those interested in the movement into space were the astronauts. . . . A self-selection process evolved that effectively weeded out any aspiring astronaut who was less than completely dedicated to space projects. Of course, the competition became fierce and remained so for over 50 years as the astronaut profession became the one most desired in technologically advanced societies. The successful competitors became a new elite group with a commitment to their profession that evolved into a new kind of “religion”; one in which they were viewed as the “high priests”—yet no formal rituals or dogmas were practiced or needed.

This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, also known as “space culture.” Like popular science-fiction, the report somewhat naïvely assures us that the space culture was not planned—“it just happened”!

[A]s it grew it gradually transcended the former boundaries or “bonds” of chauvinistic nationalism. This attitude was not always understood by those outside the “space community” even though it became a prominent theme in the communications media. The direct physical experiences of transcending the surface of the earth had created a psychological counterpoint which led to a transcendence of the earth-centered national traditions and cultures. The sociological development became one of the major factors which led to phenomenal changes in the 21st century and beyond.

[nashvillebrook]

tangentially to sci-fi propaganda and programming: We were just talking about the Radio Free Albemuth scenario today...wondering if Michael Crichton was really a climate science denier, or if he'd been coerced. There's no other pattern of Crichton being a science weirdo. Why only with his last book before he died young-ish, at 66 — and such a spectacularly awful book, btw.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2008/11/07/michael-crichton-author-of-state-of-fear-leaves-global-warming-disinformation-legacy/


Michael Crichton, author of State of Fear, leaves global warming disinformation legacy

We usually hold back on criticism of the recently deceased, but as the appreciation pieces are being written we’ll say for the record that the late Michael Crichton did a disservice with his denialist potboiler novel State of Fear, which abused climate scientists and environmentalists. President Bush met directly with Crichton while snubbing real scientists. President Obama can begin to set things right by showing that he is instead meeting directly with leading scientists and learning from them.

Post by Rick Piltz

Michael Crichton’s writing kept a lot of people entertained. But he sullied his legacy with State of Fear and his attacks on the climate science community.

Joe Romm on Climate Progress has written an excellent, excoriating commentary on Crichton’s legacy (“Michael Crichton, world’s most famous global warming denier, dies,” November 5, see below for an excerpt) that nails key points. I’ll just add:

I had not previously read any of Crichton’s books, but when State of Fear gained notoriety for its treatment of global warming I picked it up and read it through all the way to the end of the bibliography on page 672. What a dreadful piece of work. To begin with, the novel is populated by unrealistic cardboard characters who speak lines written with a tin ear for dialogue. The storyline ranges from melodramatic, highly visual scenes that read like they want to be made into a movie (thankfully no one seems to be interested in doing this), to didactic pseudo-science lectures, to scenes with environmental organization types that seem to exist in some alternate universe to the one that is inhabited by actual real-world environmentalists. But those are the least of the book’s problems.

Every aspect of the novel seems designed to make up a sustained, scurrilous misrepresentation of the climate science community and the environmental movement. His environmentalists are either eco-terrorists planning to cause a murderous disaster to further their sinister, authoritarian political aims, or they are ignorant fools and hypocrites. The leading climate scientists don’t know what they’re talking about, misrepresent their data, and trade their intellectual integrity for continued funding by bureaucrats with whom they are in collusion to mislead the world into believing that anthropogenic global warming and its impacts are real. The author’s hero, Kenner, is an investigator portrayed as a knowledgeable, savvy expert who supposedly cuts through the scientists’ and environmentalists’ B.S., while using material that might have come from a briefing by Pat Michaels.

Charles McGrath’s appreciation in the New York Times November 5 refers to this as “speculating, in his 2004 novel, “State of Fear,” that global warming might be a hoax.” That doesn’t begin to capture the smear job that Crichton perpetrated on scientists and environmentalists. Nor did the news reader’s comment I heard earlier today on CNN that Crichton “angered environmentalists when he questioned global warming.” Nor did CNN’s online statement that the book “took on global warming and the theories surrounding it.” Nor did the Associated Press when it said that environmentalists didn’t like the book because it was “hurting efforts to pass legislation to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.” The book is insidious from start to finish.

Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies posted a solid, gentlemanly explanation of some of Crichton’s scientific errors on RealClimate (Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion).

Jim Hansen of NASA set the record straight on Crichton’s (and Pat Michaels’) misrepresentation of Hansen’s work (Michael Crichton’s “Scientific Method”).

Further, Crichton carried his misrepresentation of climate science and attack on the integrity of climate scientists into the political arena and the media. So this wasn’t just an exercise in science fiction writing – Crichton seemed to actually believe his own fiction and was willing to use it as a weapon.

Recall that when the book came out in 2004, we were still in the depths of media coverage of global warming based on fake “balance,” in which real science and either disinformation or contrarian views were routinely played off against each other with no invetsigation of the merits. The Natural Resources Defense Council noted this in their write-up of the book (Michael Crichton’s State of Fear: They Don’t Call It Science Fiction for Nothing):

What’s truly scary is the willingness of some major U.S. media to accept a sweeping dismissal—from a novelist—of scientists’ conclusions from decades of research. From Matt Lauer, on NBC’s Today show, asking Crichton whether environmentalists really could control the weather to improve their fundraising, to ABC’s “20/20” refusing to allow scientists to appear on the show when asking Crichton to describe his theory, the state of fiction and science seem to be merging—and that’s not good for our nation.

Joe Romm wrote on Climate Progress November 5 (excerpt – real the full post here):

[Crichton] used his fame in the most destructive way possible — to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific understanding of global warming, to urge people not to take action against the gravest preventable threat to the health and well-being of future generations….

In 2004, he published State of Fear, a deeply flawed novel that attacks climate science and climate scientists. Although a work of fiction, the book had a clear political agenda…

The mistake-riddled book contains a gratuitous Appendix titled “Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous,” where Crichton draws a direct and lengthy analogy between climate science and eugenics and Soviet biology under Lysenko, where all dissent to the party line was crushed and some Soviet geneticists were executed. With no evidence whatsoever, he claims, that in climate science, “open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed.”

Sadly, Crichton chose to use his fame to smear the work of countless scientists who are trying to predict and prevent the unintended consequences of humanity’s dangerous experiment with unrestricted emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases….

Crichton spoke frequently against climate scientists and climate action, including public debates and testimony at a Senate hearing chaired by James Inhofe (R-OK), where Crichton took the opportunity to once again accuse the entire scientific community of fudging the science of climate change.

Crichton even helped persuade President Bush that he was wise to do nothing to address global warming. In 2006, Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, wrote of Bush’s opposition to the Kyoto global warming treaty:

Though he didn’t say so publicly, Bush is a dissenter on the theory of global warming…. He avidly read Michael Crichton’s 2004 novel State of Fear, whose villain falsifies scientific studies to justify draconian steps to curb global warming. Crichton himself has studied the issue extensively and concluded that global warming is an unproven theory and that the threat is vastly overstated. Early in 2005, political adviser Karl Rove arranged for Crichton to meet with Bush at the White House. They talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement.

Such is Crichton’s legacy to future generations….

President Bush rarely, if ever, met directly with actual climate scientists, that we know of. So, to begin to reverse this particular piece of the Bush-Rove legacy, perhaps President Obama could let himself be seen meeting directly with leaders of the climate science community, as convened by his new presidential science adviser – and speaking to the public as one who has learned something from them.

That said, I must add, 66 is too young to die. Michael Crichton, R.I.P. and may you be remembered well for “ER” and other work that did no harm.

[guruilla]

Bit more about Scenario Planning starting with a reminder about Herman Khan's affiliations:

Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, the Sixties, and Beyond: Martin A. Lee, Bruce Shlain:

While Rand Corporation specialists pondered whether LSD might be an antidote to political activism, the Hudson Institute, another think tank with strong ties to the intelligence community, kept tabs on shifting trends within the grassroots psychedelic movement. Founded by Herman Kahn, one of America's leading nuclear strategists, the Hudson Institute specialized in classified research on national security issues. Kahn experimented with LSD on repeated occasions during the 1960s, and he visited Millbrook and other psychedelic strongholds on the East Coast. From time to time the rotund futurist (Kahn weighed over three hundred pounds) would stroll along Saint Mark's Place in New York's East Village, observing the flower children and musing on the implications of the acid subculture. At one point he predicted that by the year 2000 there would be an alternative "dropped-out" country within the United States. But Kahn was not overly sympathetic to the psychedelic movement. "He was primarily interested in social control," stated a Hudson Institute consultant who once lectured there on the subiect of LSD.
http://www.levity.com/aciddreams/sample ... tanks.html

This "future-now" technique developed by Kahn seems like a key development - how big a step is it from imagining one is in the future to enacting the future? Actually, that is one of the devices recommended by NASA for teachers of "Space Science":

Future Studies and Space Exploration - ER

..Simulation gaming requires more extensive preparation but also transfers learning out of the textbook and into the experiential realm.

Hypothetical or actual conflicts involving groups, nations, or individuals provide a framework for the evolution and testing of strategies appropriate to the particular goal of the chosen game. Games should be constructed to avoid the cheap or quick victory. Therefore, game development often proceeds experimentally, until the bugs can be worked out. Of course, playing such games can consume a great deal of time and consequently might be considered a "laboratory" experience.

Suggested game topics include: limited or limitless growth, space funding, star wars‹the military in space, U.N. conference on communications resources, energy‹the space option, and designing the manned Mars mission. All of these topics suggest obvious multivariable problems and opportunities for competing philosophical or technical objectives. Some games are designed specifically as no-win games which allow a variety of conclusions; sometimes the process of the game is more important than the outcome. Such factors should be clearly stated in the game instructions.

...Success in the game can be measured in terms of accumulation of position, wealth, resources, positive decisions, or success at compromise, cooperation, or adaptability. ...
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/future.html

See also: An incomplete guide to the future; Willis W. Harman, San Francisco Book Co., 1976

Scenario planning first emerged for application to businesses in a company set up for researching new forms of weapons technology in the RAND Corporation. [Fabians, ding ding] Herman Kahn of RAND Corporation pioneered a technique he titled “future – now” thinking. The intent of this approach was to combine detailed analyses with imagination and produce reports as though they might be written by people in the future. Kahn adopted the name “scenario” when Hollywood determined the term outdated, and switched to the label “screenplay”. In the mid – 1960’s, Kahn founded the Hudson Institute which specialized in writing stories about the future to help people consider the “unthinkable”. He gained most notoriety around the idea that the best way to prevent nuclear war was to examine the possible consequences of nuclear war and widely publish the results (Kahn & Weiner, 1967).

Around the same time, the Stanford Research Institute began offering long-range planning for businesses that considered political, economic and research forces as primary drivers of business development. The work of organizations such as SRI began shifting toward planning for massive societal changes (Ringland, 1998). When military spending increased to support the Vietnam War, an interest began to grow in finding ways to look into the future and plan for changes in society. These changing views were largely a result of the societal shifts of the time.

The SRI “futures group” was using a variety of methods to create scenarios for the United States Education system for the year 2000. Five scenarios were created and one entitled “Status Quo Extended” was selected as the official future...
Link

Also, The Tomorrow Project:

What kind of future do you want to live in? What are you excited about and what concerns you? What is your request of the future? The Tomorrow Project is a fascinating initiative that investigates these questions and explores not only the future of computing but the broader implications on our lives and planet.

In this unique time in history, science and technology has progressed to a point where what we build is only constrained by the limits of our own imaginations. The future is not a fixed point in front of us that we are all hurtling helplessly towards. The future is built everyday by the actions of people. It’s up to all of us to be active participants in the future and these conversations can help us do just that.

A major focus of the Tomorrow Project is to sponsor competitions that generate science-based fiction that explores possible futures. These stories can be used as inspiration to scientists, or as data for cultural anthropologists.

http://tomorrow-projects.com/

And:

Science Fiction Film as Design Scenario Exercise for Psychological Habitability: Production Designs 1955-2009

The second part involved an illustrative case study reconstructing, from previously unpublished archive material,
the main conceptualisation stages of the design of the food dispensing system in one particular film from the sample set, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is suggested that, in the particular case examined, the process of film production design development can be regarded as a space design study.

http://www.spacearchitect.org/pubs/AIAA-2010-6109.pdf

Since I already did some research around 2001, and since the best way to tackle a large and amorphous subject is by zeroing in on a specific possible example, here's some evidence of 2001 as a massive advertisement for the space culture (one that weirdly tied into the counterculture and psychedelic scene: inner space/outer space):



In the opening shot there's a glimpse of this Look magazine, from 1966:



Kubrick was a staff photographer for Look magazine prior to becoming a filmmaker. In the first sentence the Look publisher mentions Paper-clipped Nazi space scientist, Dr. Werner Von Braun, an unofficial adviser on 2001; he then goes on to talk about "the much needed job of indoctrinating our public" (1:40).

Technical adviser Fred Ordway explains that they have been working with over 50 companies in the US including IBM, GE, RCA, etc (5:10). He also mentions that he is a close friend of A. C. Clarke and a former employee of Von Braun (NASA), whom he suggests is involved with the film (5:30). The doc also includes footage of Clarke visiting NASA during the final construction of the LEM which would later land on the moon (11:50).

A. C. Clarke from the doc:

We hope to convey to the public the wonder and beauty and promise of the new age of exploration opening up before the human race [and] to convey the message that our earth is perhaps not the only abode of life. . .

People are space conscious but not space minded.

[Space travel =] the next stage in the evolution of mankind

Earth is the cradle of mankind

Keir Dullea (Bowman) describes Kubrick as "one of the giants," and his own character as "a gigantic figure": astronauts are "the heroes of our time."

Documentary commentator:

"The coming century will reveal a new and startling universe . . . This is the promise of 2001!"

He goes on to cite motion pictures' "ability to educate while entertaining" before summing up, announcing that Look proposes a special issue devoted to "the social impact of celestial exploration . . . timed to ride the crest of MGM's multimillion dollar promotional program."

He then pitches to the magazine's advertisers as "direct beneficiaries" of this program:

This will afford you a unique publishing vehicle for projecting your corporate future plans. Your message will appear against an educational backdrop revealing how all segments of American industry are anticipating the opportunities and the need of tomorrow's world, offering the public the information needed to make an affirmative judgment on the great national investment required to continue this progress.

(Note how the affirmative is "preordained" as the only correct judgment, an admission of propaganda as opposed to education)

After that, he quotes von Braun on how there are more than 400,000 men and women, 20,000 companies, and 150 universities working with NASA alone and that more than 95% of NASA's budget goes to contractors.

Lastly, he compares Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana for 15% of gross national product at that time to today, when NASA's budget is only 1% of our gross national product (i.e, space program is criminally underfunded).

Just in case this example seems a bit outdated, a reminder that last year's big hit Interstellar was a Kubrick-homage and a kind of 2001 update:

The film Interstellar should be shown in school science lessons, a scientific journal has urged.

....

The director of Interstellar, Christopher Nolan, told BBC News that Dr Jackson's comments and the two journal publications were "very important" to him.

Mr Nolan worked with Kip Thorne, a professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) who was also one of the film's executive producers. Prof Thorne's vision was to produce a sci-fi film with real science woven into the fabric of the story.

"Films such as Interstellar or Contact or 2001: A Space Odyssey are inspirations for young people. A number of people I trained as a physicist with got involved with science because of movies like these. So if you are going to have a film that really does attract young people to science it had best be scientifically accurate," he said.

....

"Right from the beginning we all really believed it's time to inspire another generation to really look outwards and to look to the stars again.

"We hoped that by dramatising science and making it something that could be entertaining for kids we might inspire some of the astronauts of tomorrow - that would be the ultimate goal of the project," he said.

In general, Hollywood does seem to be getting better at portraying science in its blockbuster films. This may partly be due to an initiative by the US National Academy of Sciences called the Science and Entertainment Exchange. This puts scientists in contact with film-makers and TV producers in order to get more accurate science on the big and small screens.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33173197

[MinM]

Was Tom Clancy doing Predictive Programming for the State?

Tom Clancy’s books are known for their technical accuracy, their political realism and their curious ability to foreshadow future events. In this episode we explore his government connections – to the FBI, CIA, Pentagon and the White House. We examine whether these connections are what enabled Clancy to write such prophetic fiction, and the impact of that on his readers. We also look at the influence of Clancy’s work on the government, from an elaborate inside joke within the CIA to the reading habits of Ronald Reagan. We round off looking at two possible Clancy copycats, both American men who flew planes into buildings (one before 9/11 and one after)...

http://www.constantinereport.com/secret ... om-clancy/

@TheFilmStage: R.I.P. Tom Clancy, who passed away at the age of 66.

viewtopic.php?p=440094#p440094

[Wombaticus Rex]

My favorite bit of academic slashfic becoming predictive programming would be Carter, Deutch & Zelikow's "Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transformative Event."

Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger
Journal Article, Foreign Affairs, volume 77, issue 6, pages 80-94
November / December 1998
Authors: Dr. Ashton B. Carter, Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Harvard & Stanford Universities, John M. Deutch, International Council Member, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Philip D. Zelikow, Former Faculty Affiliate, International Security Program

Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security; Preventive Defense Project

Foreign Affairs
November/December 1998, Volume 77, Number 6
CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM: Tackling the New Danger
By Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow
IMAGINING THE TRANSFORMING EVENT
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. But today's terrorists, be they international cults like Aum Shinrikyo or individual nihilists like the Unabomber, act on a greater variety of motives than ever before. More ominously, terrorists may gain access to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices, germ dispensers, poison gas weapons, and even computer viruses. Also new is the world's dependence on a nearly invisible and fragile network for distributing energy and information. Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously, as demonstrated by the response to the attacks on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism.

[seemslikeadream]

Whoomp there it is


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8AyVhs3gJU


These three words mean you're gettin' busy
Whoomp there it is
Whoomp there it is
Upside down and inside out
I'm about to show all you folks
What's it's all about
Now it's time to get on the mic

Shit that's a breath taker

I produce AKA the undertaker
You want to come down to the underground


Yeah Tag Team music comin' straight atcha


here's a shovel can you dig it fool

[zangtang]

so Tom Clancy & Michael Crichton both died at 66?

Ludlum made it to 73

(wikipedia): Ludlum died on March 12, 2001, at his home in Naples, Florida, while recovering from severe burns caused by a mysterious fire which occurred on February 10

ain't sayin nuttin'.....

Ludlum's novels were often inspired by conspiracy theories, both historical and contemporary. He wrote that The Matarese Circle was inspired by rumors about the Trilateral Commission, and it was published only a few years after the commission was founded. His depictions of terrorism in books such as The Holcroft Covenant and The Matarese Circle reflected the theory that terrorists, rather than being merely isolated bands of ideologically motivated extremists, are actually pawns of governments or private organizations who are using them to facilitate the establishment of authoritarian rule.

[zangtang]

on reflection, yeah pretty o/t - but not entirely....untangential !

like i said, ain't sayin nuttin'.....